Opinion
March 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant did not object to the court's instructions to the jury or request alternative instructions, his argument on appeal that the jury charge was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Baucom, 154 A.D.2d 688). In any event, we find that the court's instruction adequately conveyed the appropriate legal standards (see, People v Brown, 174 A.D.2d 370). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.